per head per annum ;-and, from December 25th, 1797, to December 25th, 1798, (the average number in the house during that period being 1587,) the charges of maintenance, with the incidental expences, were at the rate of 41. 15 s. 3d. per head. This great saving of expence was principally ef fected by a reform in the dietary of the house, which underwent a strict examination; when it was discovered, that, from the quality of the food, the mode of distribution, the fraud and peculation of the officers, the expence was enormous.'To the mode of distributing the different articles of provision from the steward's stores to the several offices, there had hitherto been no check. They therefore established the following regulation: the head porter every morning at an early hour returns to the secretary the number to be provided with food for the day; the secretary calculates the quantity necessary to be issued from the stores, and the several officers acknowlege the receipt in pass-books, which are compared by the Board once a week with the steward's book.' This certainly was a material regulation. We have known similar rules observed in cases in which it has been necessary to cook, in one common boiler, provisions for a large number of people; with the additional precautions of making public the numbers to be fed, and the quantity of provisions to be issued, and causing two of the people to attend at the steward's office to see that the right quantity was issued, and afterward to see it safely delivered into the cook-room. Occasionally, likewise, an inspection was made into the weights and measures. In no case, are such vigilant cautions more necessary than in institutions for the maintenance of the poor.

It having been found (we are here told) that numbers were induced to enter the house, from the certainty of receiving gratuitous support, superior to what their labour elsewhere would have procured them, the diet was reduced to that standard by which the industrious labourer can subsist in his own habitation at the lowest rate of wages. With this practice of economy, it is satisfactory to find that the health of the poor did not suffer by the alterations; that, in the statement of the mortality, there appears a very great decrease after the new regulations were put in execution; and that notwithstanding the increased price of provisions, and several other necessary articles, the estimates for subsistence were not exceeded, nor the comforts of the poor abridged.'

་

One of the great excellencies in this Establishment is its being (as expressed in the petition) supplementary to every other charitable institution; receiving persons of every description, without any other recommendation than apparent distress. It must likewise be noticed that, to clear the streets of vagrants and beggars, many are sent into the house, and ther e kept for a term to labour,

Of 1644 persons now (November 1797) in the house, 1292 have been admitted at their own desire, any of whom would consider expulsion as a severe punishment.' The doors are open to the distressed of every description without certificate or recommendation, (children not excepted) and all who have not been compelled to enter, are discharged on expressing a wish facts that cannot be too often stated.'

The indiscriminate association of the poor must necessarily have been destructive of industry, order, and decency; the first object, therefore, of the acting Governors, was to form them into separate classes, according to their ages, conduct, and abilities. By these means they were enabled to excite industry by emulation, to discriminate between the idle vagrant and the industrious yet distressed manufacturer.'' To render this more effectual, each class was placed under the immediate superintendance of one of the Governors, who pledged himself to pay daily attention to that class over which he was to preside, and to report to the Board his observations on their situation. Thus an intimate knowlege was obtained of every person in the institution, their wants were accurately known and immediately redressed.'

Workshops are fitted up in the house, with the requisite accommodations for the labourers; and the Governors have established it as a rule, that those who are capable of labour should be clothed from their own exertions; from which regulation, it appears that they are better provided, and more careful of their clothing, than when they conceived that their right to clothes arose from nakedness. Proper persons are engaged (many of whom are found in the house) to instruct the children in trades; to whom they are apprenticed for seven years, the Board reserving the power of assigning over their indentures, which is done when tradesmen of good character make application. The children are likewise instructed in the principles of religion, in reading, writing, and arithmetic; and are, every Sunday, examined by some of the Governors. Among the employments taught to the female children, is hosiery:

A manufacture, (says the account) which, though extremely well adapted to females, has not hitherto been attempted by them in this country; and the Board cannot omit this opportunity of stating their opinion, that the employing females in this manufacture, and in others of a like kind, wherein an expert hand is more requisite than masculine strength, merits every possible encouragement from the Legislature and the public.' The usurpation of the male sex, in many departments of industry formerly occupied by females, having deprived of support a very considerable number of the latter class.'

1

We trust that our readers will not complain, if our remarks on a subject of such general importance are extended beyond the usual limits. In many workhouses, we believe particularly

particularly in some of those in London, industry meets with great discouragement. We have been informed that poor women, employed there in making shirts, have been paid not. more than a penny for each shirt made; and for other work not in greater proportion. In the former management of the Dublin House of Industry, the poor received one-sixth part of the produce of their labour; at present, they are allowed twothirds, the rest being reserved to pay the expence of machinery and superintendance.

It is not an easy matter to determine what portion of their labour it may be proper to with-hold from the poor, in houses established for their relief and support. The benefit which they derive from their labour is the greatest encouragement to be industrious; yet it appears obvious that, if they had the free disposal of the whole, clear of all deduction, it might be a temptation to many to remain burthensome to the house, who were capable of maintaining themselves without assistance, Whatever deductions are made, it might be highly useful that an account of them should be publicly given to the labourer, and of the purposes to which they would be applied. This publicity would assist in guarding against frauds; and the knowlege that the portion of his labour, which he did not receive himself, would be faithfully applied to beneficial purposes, would be a credit and an encouragement to the labourer.

In the tables of the expences of the establishment, we find that the house is provided with two clergymen, one of the Protestant, and one of the Roman Catholic religion, at equal salaries. Besides an Infirmary, a house, detached from all other buildings, is assigned exclusively to fevers,

With so many excellent regulations, and under such superior management, we sincerely join in the hope expressed by the Governors, that the House of Industry in Dublin will become a model for other similar institutions throughout Europe:if it should be deemed adviseable to continue such establish ments. Of their real propriety and advantages, we have at times expressed our doubts, and particularly on a late occasion: See M. R. for December, p. 397, &c. See also some remarks on this subject in the course of the article immediately following this, in speaking of Mr. Kent's view of the agriculture of the county of Norfolk.

ART.

(29)

ART. IV. A General View of the Agriculture of the County of Kent} with Observations on the Means of its Improvement. Drawn up for the Consideration of the Board of Agriculture and internal Improvement; from the original Report transmitted to the Board; with additional Remarks of several respectable Country Gentlemen and Farmers. By John Boys, of Betshanger, Farmer. Svo. pp. 206. 4s. sewed. Nicol. 1796.

ART. V. General View of the Agriculture of the County of Norfolk, &c. By Nathaniel Kent, of Fulham, Middlesex. 8vo. pp. 236. 55, Boards. Nicol. 1796.

ART. VI. General View of the Agriculture of the County of Stafford, &c. By W. Pitt, of Pendeford, near Wolverhampton. 8vo. pp. 241. 5s. 6d. sewed. Nicol. 1796.

FIN

INDING these agricultural reports in our arrear list, we have taken the liberty of putting them together; not from any disrespect to either of the reporters, but in order at once to discharge obligations which have remained too long unpaid. The gentlemen who have here undertaken to exhibit views of these counties appear to be intelligent men,capable of executing the work assigned to them; and we cannot but deem it highly honorable to the kingdom at large, that so many men should be found in it who are qualified to assist the Board of Agriculture in accomplishing the important object of its institution.As these reports are executed on a similar plan, it may not be unacceptable to our readers to blend their several statements; and the intelligence which they convey may be more amusing, and more valuable, by being thus arranged and compared. Indeed, a very useful and instructive publication may easily be made, by judiciously epitomizing the county views. Such a work would exhibit, in a very narrow compass, the population, wealth, and resources of the kingdom. It is not to be

supposed that perfect accuracy will be obtained at first: but, by the establishment of a system of inquiry respecting agriculture, and the several branches of political economy, errors will gradually be corrected, and the truth be more completely ascertained. Mr. Boys, Mr. Kent, and Mr. Pitt, (whom we here exhibit as no mean agricultural triumvirate,) have no doubt been diligent in collecting and faithful in recording facts, as they appeared to them in the course of their respective surveys: but it is not to be supposed that, in researches so extensive and various, nothing should want correction. Under the head of population, it is difficult to be accurate: but authors who venture to state the population of a county should particularly explain their mode of calculation, and should take some pains to verify it by the actual enumeration of the people in certain districts. Could this be done in every parish through

9

out

out the kingdom, we should probably find the number of the inhabitants of Great Britain considerably greater than it is commonly supposed to be; and we ground this conjecture on the facility with which we have raised and recruited our immense fleets and armies during a war of singular exertion. This, however, is not a place for discussing this topic; and we shall take, with little or no comment, the reports of the gentlemen before us on this and other matters: leaving the business of correction to those who have opportunity and leisure for performing it.

Kent is stated by Mr. Boys to contain 14c0 square miles, or 896,000 statute acres.

Norfolk is stated by Mr. Kent to contain 1710 square miles,

or 1,094,400 statute acres.

Staffordshire is stated by Mr. Pitt to contain 1220 square miles, or 780,800 statute acres.

The population of Kent is given at 200,000.

The population of Norfolk is given at 220,000.

The population of Staffordshire is given at 250,000. Mr. Boys averages the rental of Kent at 15 s. per acre, amounting to 672,000%.

Mr. Kent gives the same average for Norfolk, making its rental to be 770,400%.

Mr. Pitt estimates the annual rental of Staffordshire at 600,000%

In Kent, the whole extent of the commons is said to be 20,000 acres.

Norfolk is said to have of unimproved commons 80,000 acres. Staffordshire, by Mr. Pitt's account, must contain of wastes more than 150,000 acres.

All these gentlemen agree in the expediency of a general inclosure act to forward the improvement of our waste lands: but one of them (Mr. Boys) confesses that there is a great quantity of poor land, which would require as much money to bring it to the utmost state of improvement, as would purchase the fee simple of it.

On the question of the best size of farms, there is not the same unanimity. It is maintained by the last-mentioned reporter, that large farms tend to lower the price of provisions; while the author of the Staffordshire survey is of opinion that there should be farms of all sizes; and Mr. Kent says, if great farms only are to be encouraged, which seems to be the aim of some, husbandmen of small capitals will be effectually cut off from the common means of raising themselves in life. Population will likewise receive an irrecoverable blow from the suppression of those little hives of plenty.'

Judicious